A Supremely Perfect Being is one who is Omnipotent, Transcendent,
Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omni benevolent. However, these attributes
in cohere with each other for many reasons, such as Omniscience and
Omnipotence. The meaning of Incoherency is when there is a lack of
logical organisation in the way something is thought out or expressed
that makes it difficult to understand, for example it is difficult to
understand a bachelor to be a married man.
To say a Supremely Perfect Being is Omnipotent (all-powerful) brings
the consequence that they can do everything including the logically
impossible such us bring it about that two plus two equals four, or
make a four-sided triangle. Let’s assume the Paradox of the Stone, if
a Supremely Perfect Being is Omnipotent, then they could create a
stone too heavy, that even they could not lift. Though since they
could not lift it, means there is something they could not do, then
they are therefore not omnipotent. On the other hand, if they cannot
create such a heavy stone, because they can lift all possible stones,
they are not omnipotent because there is something they cannot do.
Either way it looks as though, a Supremely Perfect Being cannot be
Omnipotent. An explanation would be that they very idea of the task
(paradox of stone) which is logically impossible is incoherent, and
nothing can do it even a Supremely Perfect Being. However, limiting a
Supremely Perfect Being to what is logically possible, can avoid
paradoxes but then degrades the concept of omnipotence. To say a
Supremely Perfect Being can do everything that is logically possible,
consequences that they can undergo change, do ...
... middle of paper ...
...t literally mean.
If we were to say a Supremely Perfect Being is Transcendent, then they
are immaterial and exist outside time, meaning they are not subject to
the laws of physics. Yet, if a Supremely Perfect Being is out of time,
then they are not Omnipresent (everywhere). So Omnipresence and
Transcendence are incoherent, because if a Supremely Perfect Being was
transcendent they would be out of the natural world, but since they
are omnipresence they are everywhere.
In conclusion the notion of a Supremely Perfect Being is incoherent
because all the attributes, Omnipotent, Transcendent, Omniscient,
Omnipresent and Omni benevolent, which a Supremely perfect being
possesses either in coheres individually such as Omnipotence and
Omnipresence. Or in cohere with each other such as Omnipotence and
Omni benevolence.
The philosopher J.L. Mackie wrote a very convincing piece on the problem of evil called “Evil and Omnipotence,” in which he attempts to show that one of the following premises must be false in order for them to be consistent with each other.
Michael Sandel is a distinguished political philosopher and a professor at Harvard University. Sandel is best known for his best known for his critique of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice. While he is an acclaimed professor if government, he has also delved deeply into the ethics of biotechnology. At Harvard, Sandel has taught a course called "Ethics, Biotechnology, and the Future of Human Nature" and from 2002 to 2005 he served on the President’s Council on Bioethics (Harvard University Department of Government, 2013). In 2007, Sandel published his book, The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering, in which he explains unethical implications biotechnology has and may have in the near future regarding genetic engineering.
stronger than those saying it can be. The definition of God for which is being argued is the Christian God who has the qualities of being. perfect and who created the universe. The ontological argument follows that God is perfect and no greater. being is imaginable.
Descartes stands with his position that God is perfection by saying “it is impossible that God should deceive me. For in every case of trickery or deception some imperfection is found… [and] the will to deceive is undoubtedly evidence of malice or weakness, and so cannot apply to God” (90). Through these words, Descartes explains that the natural light proves God’s perfect being because a deceiver is powerless and malevolent. God is not powerless and malevolent because he is not a deceiver. He has no imperfections. Therefore, the natural light proves his pure
John 1: 1-18 focuses on how God is present in the world. John sees himself as a messenger for the word, which he can spread the good news about God’s creation. He knows he is not the messiah; however, he has goals of pointing people in the proper direction. At the beginning of the Book of John, there is a great amount of darkness that is over the world. People are stuck in the darkness, until they listen to word and follow the light of God. John tells the audience that true light is coming and will pour into their lives. Within the first few verses John shows that through God we can achieve great things. He shows brokenness in this
Perfection is much like the lottery; many people will strive for it with the hopes of attaining their ultimate goal, only to realize that reaching it is nearly impossible. However, unlike the lottery, there is not even the slightest chance of winning the final prize. To be completely perfect is an impossible feat, and the more attempts made to reach a status of “perfection”, the more let down a person will be. The quality of complete perfection is unobtainable and unreasonable, yet many cultures and certain groups of people take pride in being known as perfectionists. This reach for the impossible can be seen in the strict code followed by all knights during the feudal time period. Sir Gawain in the late
As Christians we read, we talk, and learn about the attributes and the nature of God during our Christian life. I am talking about the uniqueness and his personality that we all take part of everyday of our lives or in relationship with him. Throughout history God has left hidden jewels in the Bible of who he truly is. On the other hand, the bibles list few attributes of who he is, but as always its incomplete and we have to seek him for his very attributes in nature.
In todays society to be “perfect” one must follow society’s criteria. This criteria can depend on what type of perfection one is following. There are different types of perfection such as self oriented perfection, socially prescribed perfection, other oriented perfection, overt perfection, and covert perfection. These types of perfection are all different in how a person is “perfect”. Trying to be perfect can have its benefits but it causes mental health problems that make it not worth it. Rachel Rettner said, “Though perfection is an impossible goal, striving for it can be a boon for one's health, causing one to stick to exercise programs to a tee, say, or follow a strict regimen for treating chronic illnesses like type
A wonderful description of the nature of God’s existence that includes the absolute possession of characteristics that have to be uniquely God was said, “First, God must exist necessarily, which means that God’s existence differs from ours by not being dependent on anything or anyone else, or such as to be taken from him or lost in any way. God has always existed, will always exist and could not do otherwise than to exist. Also, whatever attributes God possesses, he possesses necessarily” (Wood, J., 2010, p. 191).
Aquinas begins one of his arguments for the purpose of knowledge by distinguishing two types of perfection, existence and “perfection belonging to one thing is found in another” (Aquinas, q.2 a. 2) essentially, knowledge. In the first type of perfection, existence, something would be perfect according to its own species. The species, or forms, are perfect from the act of their existence. There are four forms: human, animal, plant and inanimate; each of these are perfect in their existence. Since each species has its own perfection, “the perfect falls short of absolute perfection to the extent that perfection is found in other species” (Aquinas De veritate q.2,a.2), meaning that no form can hold absolute perfection. In this definition of knowledge where knowing conforms to being, an acorn, for example, is perfect when it can grow, reproduce and nourish, reaching its final cause. But it is only the perfection of an oak tree (plant). The oak tree cannot have the perfection of a human. Perfection is limited to each individual form, because the whole of perfection is more perfect than the perfection of each
Certain statements made by Pope John Paul II in his commentary on the lasting significance of the papal encyclical “Rerum Novarum,” resonate in a highly spiritual plane, others a highly earthly one, and others in both at once. I would posit that this integrated place is of utmost significance to a sound doctrine of social justice in society, with which both documents are highly concerned. The current pope most clearly states the intertwining of the spiritual and physical needs of the human being when he says that “the Church's social teaching is itself a valid instrument of evangelization ” and “reveals man to himself” (John Paul II, 78). Like Pope John Paul II, I understand the social doctrine of the Church as more than an opportunity to show others how good God is and how much they need the spiritual salvation that comes from this same God's goodness. I believe in God's goodness, God is content to care for God's created and beloved children through fostering the practice of justice and peace as integral threads in the tapestry of all ...
Descartes says that God being the most perfect being. He can prove Gods existence with the fact that God gave him the idea that he exists since there is no likely that he could have come up with this idea himself. As Descartes says, “Hence it is just as much of a contradiction to think of God (that is, a supremely perfect being) lacking existence (that is, lacking a perfection), as it is to think of a mountain without a valley” (Descartes 203). Rene Descartes compares God to a mountain and his existence to a valley. According to Descartes these two things, a mountain and a valley are indivisible, just as God and his existence are
can possibly think of. When Anselm states this, it essentially means that it is not possible to think of a being greater than God. Anselm also states that if God is the greatest thinkable being, he is referring to the fact that it would be impossible to imagine or to create in ones mind someone or something being better than God. Therefore, it would be impossible to say that God only exists in ones mind because it is much greater to exist in reality than it is to exist only in ones mind. Anselm then suggests that God has many attributes which describe him. Among these being: self-existent, a necessary being, omnipotent, omniscient, completely just and timelessly eternal. After reading the Proslogion by Anselm, it gave me a greater understanding of these attributes listed above. Although, they are all of equal importance, I feel the most prominent of God's attributes is the fact that he is self existent. In essence, that means that God depends on nothing else for his existence, he is uncaused. Therefore, his existence is timelessly-eternal. This means that God cannot stop existing. On the other hand, contingent beings (such as ourselves) depend on something else for their existence. One example of this is, that as a child we utterly depended on our parents for food, clothing, and shelter. Contingent beings therefore can begin to be or cease to be at anytime. They can, unlike God, be here today and gone tomorrow.
...e in finite terms because those finite terms transform God and the truth into nothingness. This is why filling the infinite abyss is so impossible with finite means. Only the infinite can fill the infinite abyss. Furthermore, we know there is an abyss to be filled, because even the greatest doubts of the sceptics cannot deny that we exist since questioning whether we think is self-affirmative. We do exist; however, most individuals do so only realising the world of the finite. It is the realisation of the difference between the infinite and the finite - omniscience - that allows us to realise that the finite is nothing in relation to the infinite. Since God and truth are both nothingness in the finite, there is no way of describing them finitely; however, understanding the inability to distinguish these two concepts is precisely how one will understand them.
I believe in an all mighty, all knowing creator. It is easiest to comprehend this being as a man or other human like form, but I do not believe this to be the case. God is perfect. God is perfect because he created perfection. This leaves only two options; 1. Everything is perfect because God created it. 2. Every thing is imperfect in comparison to God.